Cho High Court Decision 2008J 3602 ( October 20, 2009)

Processing Tax Invoice without Real Trade

It is reasonable to deem that a transaction partner received a tax invoice without a real transaction in light of the fact that the transaction partner filed an accusation on data and there is no evidence to acknowledge the details of financial transactions.

The contents of the decision shall be the same as attached.

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The plaintiff shall bear the litigation costs.

The Defendant’s imposition of value-added tax of KRW 33,240,000 against the Plaintiff on April 1, 2008 shall be revoked.

1. Circumstances of the disposition;

A. On May 2, 1996, the Plaintiff registered his business with the trade name of ○○○○○dong 55-9 ○ International Distribution Complex 27 Dong 211 as ○○○○○○○, 27 dong 27 dong 211, and then received the tax base for the instant tax credit for five category of pharmaceutical machinery, such as cartop, from NewA, which is operated by △△△△ (hereinafter referred to as ○○○○) on October 16, 2006, with respect to five category of pharmaceutical machinery, including cartop, from newA, which was operated by ○○○○○, ○○○○, ○○○○, 00,000 won on November 10, 2006, 85,000,000 won on December 19, 206, 200, value-added tax amount of KRW 250,000,000.

B. From May 21, 2007 to June 26, 2007, the head of △△△ Tax Office conducted a tax invoice drilling investigation of the new A, and confirmed that the new A was a data that continuously issued a false tax invoice to ○○○ in the taxable period from January 2005 to February 2006, and notified the Defendant of the taxation data.

C. Accordingly, on February 1, 2008, the Defendant conducted a survey of the recipient of the data from the Plaintiff and received the data from the Plaintiff as a false tax invoice issued without a real transaction. The tax amount indicated in the above tax invoice is undeductible from the output tax amount for the second period of February, 2006, and corrected the relevant tax standard and tax amount, and issued the instant disposition imposing value 33,240,000 won on the Plaintiff on Apr. 1, 2008.

D. On October 21, 2008, the Plaintiff appealed and filed a request for a trial with the Tax Tribunal on October 21, 2008, and on February 20, 2009, the Tax Tribunal issued a request for a trial with the Tax Tribunal.

By re-examination of actual purchase, etc., the tax base and tax amount of the disposition of this case were corrected.

E. Accordingly, around March 2009, the Defendant conducted a re-help on the part of the value-added tax for the second half of 2006 for the Plaintiff, and did not rectify the said disposition by deeming the instant disposition lawful.

[Ground of recognition] Evidence No. 1-3, Evidence No. 3, Evidence No. 5-1, Evidence No. 8-1, Evidence No. 1-1, Evidence No. 2-1, Evidence No. 2-2, Evidence No. 7, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the dispositions of the instant case are legal.

A. The parties' assertion

1) The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff asserts that the instant tax invoice is illegal on the following grounds, since it is a purchase tax invoice through an actual transaction, the instant disposition based on the premise that the instant tax invoice is a false tax invoice.

(가) 원고는 2006. 10. 14. ◇◇◇◇지 대표 신AA과 사이에 카토너 등 제약기계 5종을 대금 275,000,000원에 매수하기로 하는 내용의 매매계약을 체결한 다음, 이 사건 세금계산서상의 발행일자에 위 제약기계를 모두 납품받아 이를 주식회사 ◆◆◆◆밍(이하 '◆◆◆◆밍'이라고 한다)에 공급하였다.

(나) 대금의 정산은, 위 매매대금 중 13,750,000원은 할인받았고, 부가가치세액 25,000,000원은 신AA의 부 신BB의 계좌로 송금하였으며, 위 제약기계 중 카토너, 캡슐충전기, 연고충전기 합계 122,265,000원은 ◆◆◆◆밍으로부터 반품되었고, 66,000,000원은 6차례에 걸쳐 현금으로 지급하였으며, 나머지 47,985,000원은 반품에 따른 원고의 손실 등을 이유로 면제받았다.

2) Defendant’s principal

(A) In light of the fact that the new AA’s investigation was conducted on the data, and that the Plaintiff deposited KRW 25,00,000,000 in the original account at the time of undergoing the tax investigation, and the remaining KRW 250,000,000,000 was stated as a promissory note. However, the Defendant stated that the said promissory note was withdrawn because it is difficult for the said promissory note to reverse the defective details to investigate the financial transaction details of the said promissory note, and there is no financial data to acknowledge that the payment was made in addition to KRW 28,30,00,00 which was deposited into the account of the newB, it is reasonable to view the instant tax invoice as a false tax invoice

(B) In addition, the actual operator of ○○○ Branch is a newB, and the Plaintiff knowingly received the instant tax invoice in the name of the newA even though he was aware of it, so the instant tax invoice is a different tax invoice from the fact that the supplier is the supplier.

(b) Related statutes;

It shall be as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

먼저, 이 사건 세금계산서가 실물 거래 없이 허위로 발행된 세금계산서인지 여부에 관하여 살피건대, 갑 제3호증, 갑 제5호증의 1, 을 제1호증의 1, 을 제5호증의 1 내지 4, 을 제8호증의 1, 2, 을 제9호증의 3의 각 기재에 변론 전체의 취지를 종합하면, △△세무서장은 ◇◇◇◇지에 대한 세무조사를 통하여, 신AA이 2005년 1기부터 2006년 2기까지의 과세기간 ○○ 786.000.000원의 매출 세금계산서를 발행하였으나 매입액은 거의 없었고 더욱이 2006년 1기 및 2기 과세기간 ○○의 매입액은 전혀 없었으며, 매출처로부터 매출세금계산서 교부금액의 10 - 15% 상당의 금액만 신BB의 계좌에 입금된 사실을 밝혀내고, 신AA, 신BB을 검찰에 고발한 점(신BB은 기소중지 상태이고 신AA은 참고인중지 상태이다), ◇◇◇◇지는 2006. 5. 30.까지만 위 공장부지를 임차하였고, 그 이후로는 다른 회사가 위 공장을 사용하였으며, ◇◇◇◇지 명의로 전기를 사용한 내역은 확인되지 않는 것으로 보아 ◇◇◇◇지가 2006년 2기 과세기간 중에 실제로 제약기계를 제조하여 원고에게 납품하였다고 보기는 어려운 점, 원고는 검찰조사 시 ◇◇◇◇지로부터 납품받아 ◆◆◆◆밍에 공급하였다고 하는 제약 기계 중 캡슐충전기가 이탈리아제품이라는 내용의 거래사실확인서를 제출하였으나, ◆◆◆◆밍에 공급하였다가 반품된 캡슐충전기는 독일제품인 점, 원고는 ◆◆◆◆밍으로부터 반품받은 캡슐충전기 등의 제약기계를 ◇◇◇◇지에 반품하지 않고 원고 운영의 공장에 이를 보관하고 있었던 점, 원고는 신BB의 계좌로 28,300,000원을 송금하였을 뿐, 나머지 대금의 지급에 대하여는 이를 인정할 금융자료를 제출하지 못하고 있을 뿐만 아니라, 원고가 그 명의의 계좌에서 인출하여 신BB에게 현금으로 지급하였다고 한 금액 중 일부도 원고 본인이 세금 납부 등으로 사용한 점 등이 인정되는바, 이러한 여러 사정에 비추어 보면, 이 사건 세금계산서는 실물 거래 없이 발행된 허위의 세금계산서라고 봄이 상당하고, 이에 반하는 을 제3호증의 1 내지 3의 일부 기재는 믿지 아니하며, 달리 반증이 없으므로, 이 사건 세금계산서가 허위의 세금계산서임을 전제로 한 이 사건 처분에 어떤 잘못이 있다고 할 수 없다.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim seeking the revocation of the disposition of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.